FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1500958332> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1500958332 startingPage "305" @default.
• W1500958332 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION Youth Courts exist throughout the country and are based on education policy attempting to address, through alternative means, issues of student discipline in schools. In 2006, there were over 1,250 Youth Courts in the United States serving as many as 125,000 offenders and utilizing over 100,000 youth volunteers.1 Most of the Youth Courts are housed within the justice system (42%) while 36% are school-based and 22% are community based.2 Youth Courts are a policy solution aiming to reduce the push-out phenomenon that tracks students into what has been termed the to prison pipeline.3 Youth are empowered to play a determining role in judging youth offenders by serving as jurors and handing down sentences.4 Students also have the opportunity to play the roles of judge, attorneys, bailiff and clerk. Youth Courts provide many benefits; they help to reduce court costs, lower recidivism rates, and provide opportunities for offenders to learn law related citizenship and personal skills.5 There is little to no empirical research on the implementation or efficacy of school -based Youth Courts. To date, only one recent study has explored these types of courts.6 All other studies have been on justice diversionary Youth Courts.7 Hirschinger-Blank et al. look specifically at the experiences of the youth volunteers but do not consider the implementation experiences of the organizers, teachers or administrators.8 As schools are increasingly turning toward a Youth Court model as a preferred alternative to traditional discipline policy, this research adds support to these endeavors. This Article explores the early development of a school-based Youth Court in an urban area in Texas. Forged through a partnership between the local school district and a large public university law school, this collaborative and novel approach to student discipline is unique.9 The observations are basal, as the Youth Court is still not fully operationalized. However, an analysis of the implementation process offers insight into the tensions that exist when two institutional systems- legal and educational- begin to co-exist. In the discussion that follows, we begin with a review of the literature on the school to prison pipeline and a description of Texas 's discipline policies in schools and its increasing reliance on the legal system. We follow this with the analysis section and a contextual site description of Parker Middle School. We then discuss the traditional framework utilized for the development, goals and policy assumptions of Youth Court programs. Using this framework, we over lay our observations of the challenges of the early implementation process of the program. The Article concludes with an explanation of planned future research and potential implications of the research for school -based Youth Courts. The purpose of this Article is to expand the scope of the limited empirical research on school-based Youth Courts by utilizing qualitative data from personal communications with law students and faculty charged with implementing the first phase of the Youth Court. Through the implementers' observations and experiences, the following research questions are addressed: 1 . How is a school-based Youth Court developed and implemented? 2. Did the implementation coincide with the intended goals and purpose of the Youth Court developers and school staff? II. DISCIPLINE AND THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE Over the last two decades, youth crime has steadily declined.10 However, public school approaches to discipline have become exceedingly more punitive. Schools have increasingly imposed harsher sanctions on students resulting in a systematic and pervasive pushing out of children from schools into the justice system and into the proverbial school to prison pipeline.12 Since the 1990s, new terms like juvenile super predator have arisen in the literature and in crime policy discussions around the country. …" @default.
• W1500958332 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1500958332 creator A5003143622 @default.
• W1500958332 creator A5021649008 @default.
• W1500958332 date "2010-10-28" @default.
• W1500958332 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1500958332 title "Developing a School-Based Youth Court: One Alternative to the School to Prison Pipeline" @default.
• W1500958332 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1500958332 type Work @default.
• W1500958332 sameAs 1500958332 @default.
• W1500958332 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W1500958332 countsByYear W15009583322012 @default.
• W1500958332 countsByYear W15009583322013 @default.
• W1500958332 countsByYear W15009583322015 @default.
• W1500958332 countsByYear W15009583322016 @default.
• W1500958332 countsByYear W15009583322018 @default.
• W1500958332 countsByYear W15009583322020 @default.
• W1500958332 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1500958332 hasAuthorship W1500958332A5003143622 @default.
• W1500958332 hasAuthorship W1500958332A5021649008 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C2776090404 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C2777711708 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C2780656516 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C2780781376 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C66487177 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C71376074 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C139621336 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C144024400 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C17744445 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C199539241 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C2776090404 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C2777711708 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C2778272461 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C2780656516 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C2780781376 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C66487177 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C71376074 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C73484699 @default.
• W1500958332 hasConceptScore W1500958332C94625758 @default.
• W1500958332 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1500958332 hasLocation W15009583321 @default.
• W1500958332 hasOpenAccess W1500958332 @default.
• W1500958332 hasPrimaryLocation W15009583321 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W1499236185 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W1499858159 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W1965685137 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W2051023431 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W2120003190 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W2247692778 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W2278046383 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W2315701986 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W244901322 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W2503240787 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W2766374495 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W3082257096 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W3121824227 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W3145730708 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W31843067 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W3199320426 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W3199964694 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W341566913 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W40795320 @default.
• W1500958332 hasRelatedWork W1434934549 @default.
• W1500958332 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W1500958332 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1500958332 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1500958332 magId "1500958332" @default.
• W1500958332 workType "article" @default.